On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:18:47 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in :
... I'm a bit surprised that there doesn't appear to be anything in the
FARs that at least provides an exception from the FARs for the operation of
radio-controlled models, but perhaps that's implied by some broader
exception I didn't notice.
I think the decision has been made administratively rather than
legislatively.
Here are the three links, in chronological order, from the longer post
I just made in this thread:
1981:
http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf
2003:
http://www.ihsaviation.com/faa/N8700.25.pdf
2005:
http://www.eoss.org/faa/AFS_400_UAS_POLICY_05_01.pdf
In other words, you won't find the exception spelled out in the FARS.
That said, it does seem to me that there's an obvious difference between
what is considered a UAV (as used by law enforcement, for example) and a
radio-controlled model. Even ignoring the usual difference in size and
flight altitude (which we may as well, since those are not absolutes even
for model airplanes), the primary difference is that radio-controlled models
are always flown in direct sight, under direct control of the operator.
Not always. An FAI record was set by Maynard Hill by an aircraft
that was piloted by RC for takeoff, then flown under internal
guidance across the Atlantic, and landed under RC control
in Ireland.
http://tam.plannet21.com/
The plane AND fuel weighed 5 kg (11 pounds) at takeoff.
It was designed, built, and tuned for the flight by Hill, who was
77 years old and legally blind at the time of the flight in
2003.
The flight last 38 hours, 52 minutes, 19 seconds.
It covered 1881.6 miles.
The engine was 10 cc (~0.61 ci), highly modified by
Hill.
In this respect, Cmdr. Sid Heal does seem to miss the point in thinking that
his law enforcement craft are somehow equivalent to radio-controlled model
airplanes.
Recreational aircraft should not be operated over a heavily-populated
area. To make a police UAV safe would require far more redundancy
than is ordinarily found in recreational RC models.
Marty